Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine-Lidocaine and Propofol-Fentanyl-Midazolam Combinations during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
Journal of Cellular & Molecular Anesthesia,
Vol. 2 No. 4 (2017),
11 December 2017
Background and Aims: Propofol is commonly used for providing sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). It’s simple to use and effective but presents cardiovascular and respiratory adverse effects. Recently, dexmedetomidine has been tried but very little evidence exists to support its use. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of combination of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine (DL) with the standard propofol-fentanyl (PF) regimen.
Methods: After approval of the hospital ethics committee, 63 patients (18-60 years of age) were randomly divided into 2 groups. Thirty-one patients received a PF combination (group PF), and 32 patients received DL combination (group DL). The level of sedation was adjusted to achieve a Ramasy Sedation Scale (RSS) score of 3 (moderate sedation) in both groups of patients. Arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) during ERCP and recovery was continuously assessed.
Results: The oxygen saturation (SpO2) showed high statistical significant differences between both groups throughout the procedure with stability in DL group (P<0.01). There was no statistical difference in HR and MAP between the two groups (P>0.05). Post-procedural recovery time was significantly shorter in PF group (15.97±3.27 min) compared with (19.38±5.64 min) DL group (p<0.01). PONV was 3.2% in PF group, while it was absent in DL group. No drug adverse effect or cardiovascular complications were observed in both groups.
Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine and lidocaine combination as total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) during ERCP not only did not reported any oxygen desaturation (SpO2<90%) but also showed better stability of oxygen saturation (SpO2) and less PONV when compared with propofol and fentanyl combination.
- oxygen saturation
How to Cite
Baillie J. Fifteen years of ERCP. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2017;86(2):327-8.
NIH state-of-the-science statement on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy. NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements. 2002;19(1):1-26.
Dumonceau JM, Riphaus A, Aparicio JR, Beilenhoff U, Knape JT, Ortmann M, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2010;42(11):960-74.
Hossam Ibrahim Eldesuky Ali Hassan. Dexmedetomidine versus ketofol for moderate sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) comparative study. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2014;31:15-21.
Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, Baron TH, Anderson MA, Banerjee S, Dominitz JA, et al. Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2008;68(5):815-26.
Demiraran Y, Korkut E, Tamer A, Yorulmaz I, Kocaman B, Sezen G, et al. The comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam used for sedation of patients during upper endoscopy: A prospective, randomized study. Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie. 2007;21(1):25-9.
Froehlich F, Schwizer W, Thorens J, Kohler M, Gonvers JJ, Fried M. Conscious sedation for gastroscopy: patient tolerance and cardiorespiratory parameters. Gastroenterology. 1995;108(3):697-704.
Zakko SF, Seifert HA, Gross JB. A comparison of midazolam and diazepam for conscious sedation during colonoscopy in a prospective double-blind study. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 1999;49(6):684-9.
Wehrmann T, Riphaus A. Sedation with propofol for interventional endoscopic procedures: a risk factor analysis. Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology. 2008;43(3):368-74.
Aantaa R, Jaakola ML, Kallio A, Kanto J, Scheinin M, Vuorinen J. A comparison of dexmedetomidine, and alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonist, and midazolam as i.m. premedication for minor gynaecological surgery. British journal of anaesthesia. 1991;67(4):402-9.
Arain SR, Ruehlow RM, Uhrich TD, Ebert TJ. The efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus morphine for postoperative analgesia after major inpatient surgery. Anesthesia and analgesia. 2004;98(1):153-8, table of contents.
Nishizawa T, Suzuki H, Sagara S, Kanai T, Yahagi N. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis. Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. 2015;27(1):8-15.
Goyal R, Hasnain S, Mittal S, Shreevastava S. A randomized, controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety profile of a dexmedetomidine-ketamine combination with a propofol-fentanyl combination for ERCP. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2016;83(5):928-33.
Muller S, Borowics SM, Fortis EA, Stefani LC, Soares G, Maguilnik I, et al. Clinical efficacy of dexmedetomidine alone is less than propofol for conscious sedation during ERCP. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2008;67(4):651-9.
Fanti L, Testoni PA. Sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal endoscopy: what's new? World journal of gastroenterology. 2010;16(20):2451-7.
Amornyotin S. Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy. World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2013;5(2):47-55.
Amornyotin S. Registered nurse-administered sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure. World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2015;7(8):769-76.
Bahrami Gorji F, Amri P, Shokri J, Alereza H, Bijani A. Sedative and Analgesic Effects of Propofol-Fentanyl Versus Propofol-Ketamine During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial. Anesthesiology and pain medicine. 2016;6(5):e39835.
Ceylan G, Yavascaoglu B, Korfali G, Kaya FN, Mogol EB, Turker G. A comparison of propofol and dexmedetomidine on the effects of hemodynamic and cognitive functions in conscious sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Uludag Universitesi Tip Fakultesi Dergis. 2010;36:103-10.
Abdalla MW, El Shal SM, El Sombaty AI, Abdalla NM, Zeedan RB. Propofol dexmedetomidine versus propofol ketamine for anesthesia of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (a randomized comparative study). Egypt J Anesth. 2015;31:97-105.
Nagaraj MC, Geetha CR, Rajavardhan R. Is dexmedetomidine a poor surrogate to propofol for procedural sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). J Evolut Med Dent Sci. 2013;2:8165-75.
Sethi P, Mohammed S, Bhatia PK, Gupta N. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for conscious sedation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: An open-label randomised controlled trial. Indian journal of anaesthesia. 2014;58(1):18-24.
Tobias JD, Leder M. Procedural sedation: A review of sedative agents, monitoring, and management of complications. Saudi journal of anaesthesia. 2011;5(4):395-410.
Kilic N, Sahin S, Aksu H, Yavascaoglu B, Gurbet A, Turker G, et al. Conscious sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: dexmedetomidine versus midazolam. The Eurasian journal of medicine. 2011;43(1):13-7.
Davis DP, Hwang JQ, Dunford JV. Rate of decline in oxygen saturation at various pulse oximetry values with prehospital rapid sequence intubation. Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors. 2008;12(1):46-51.
Pierson DJ. Pathophysiology and clinical effects of chronic hypoxia. Respiratory care. 2000;45(1):39-51; discussion -3.
Sarkar M, Niranjan N, Banyal PK. Mechanisms of hypoxemia. Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society. 2017;34(1):47-60.
Michiels C. Physiological and pathological responses to hypoxia. The American journal of pathology. 2004;164(6):1875-82.
Memary H, Mirkheshti A, Ghasemi M, Taheri M, Arhami Dolatabadi A, Kaboudvand A. Effect of Lidocaine Infusion during General Anesthesia on Neutrophil-Lymphocyte-Ratio in Breast Cancer Patients Candidate for Mastectomy; a Clinical Trial. J Cell Mol Anesth. 2016;1(4):146-53.
- Abstract Viewed: 1194 times
- PDF Downloaded: 282 times